Securitization of Migration in the EU and Africa: A Case Study.

• Author: Aslan, Sibel Yanik
• Position: ARTICLE

Introduction

Migration is the movement of people from their native lands to another country in order to live in better conditions. It is often motivated by the desire to escape from famine, civil war, or occupation. Yet, the phenomenon of migration, which is an ancient social reality, cannot be defined merely as the physical displacement of individuals or communities. In addition to a change of place, migration refers to an entire process that at times includes arduous travel, extreme risk, and, if successful, adaptation to a host society. (1) The phenomenon of international migration, in particular, necessitates a series of socio-economic and cultural changes to the persons undertaking migration, and to both the origin and destination country. Thus, migration is a social phenomenon that has both causes and consequences for the countries of origin and destination. (2)

Migration, which had been encouraged by many nation-states due to the need for labor during the 1960s, began to be considered a threat and evaluated within the framework of security after the 1973 oil crisis. In the context of the post-Cold War proliferation of security issues, migration came to be discussed within the framework of both social and cultural security concepts. This study examines the causes and consequences of migration from Africa to Europe and explores in detail how this migration came to be considered undesirable and turned into a crisis. This study aims to reveal how the concept of securitization, which is the result of the migration-security relationship, shapes EU policies regarding migration from Africa. It examines how the EU, which claims to be founded on the principles of human rights, justice, and freedom, contradicts its own values by pointing to the dilemma between security and human rights when it comes to migration; and through the imposition of restrictive policies, it implements to satisfy its member nation-states.

Theoretical Discussion

The Copenhagen School, which is the main theory employed in this study, opposes the thesis that the only element that endangers the survival of states is military power. For instance, in People, States, and Fear, (3) Barry Buzan expanded the concept of security to include the environment, economy, politics, and society. Buzan divides security into two categories: national security, centered on sovereignty, and social security, centered on the continuation of identity and society. Buzan considers threats to identity as essential threats; migration is considered a factor that damages national identity and social structure since over time, the influence of the migrating people changes their host society. (4)

The Copenhagen School differs from Realist and Liberal theories on the migration issue. Realists and Neo-realists hold that states seek to protect themselves against threats from other states. However, the Liberal theory claims there is an inclusive relationship between migration and security, and that human mobility will contribute to the establishment of an environment of peace in the world. The Copenhagen School argues that the over-expansion of the concept of security will harm the concept of security, but accepts that it is no longer possible to examine security only in the context of military power in the globalizing world. It tries to find a middle way between these two approaches.

The reason for choosing the Copenhagen School in this study is that with the securitization theory that the school brought to the literature, it is possible to conduct a clear analysis of why and how the phenomenon of migration turns into a security problem. The concept of securitization means securitization is a constructed process. In this framework, the concept or subject to be securitized is first drawn to the field of security and thus perception is created that it poses a danger. As a result, the concept or subject becomes securitized. Thanks to this concept the reasons behind the externalization of immigration and security-oriented approaches of the states can be reached, and the natural consequences of evaluating immigration within the framework of security policies can be clearly explained. The theory that gives the best answer to the question of why the EU has implemented anti-democratic immigration policies that do not reconcile with its own values is the Copenhagen School, which claims that securitization of immigration will have negative consequences. Unlike other traditional theories, the Copenhagen School identifies immigration as a security issue that affects the behavior of states.

Securitizing Immigration in the European Union

Migration is a controversial issue in Europe that affects the daily policies of EU member states on the national level, and the integration process on the supranational level. Because immigration policies affect such sensitive areas as national sovereignty, national identity, culture, employment, development, citizenship, and internal affairs, the realization of supranationalization in the area of migration policy is more difficult compared to other general policies. (5) As a result, a security-oriented perspective is seen in the ensemble of EU migration policies. (6) A closer look at the history of migration to Europe may shed helpful light on this issue.

Western European countries, which were devastated in WWII, needed a robust workforce to redevelop their wrecked industries. They accordingly opened their doors to receive immigrants from certain countries and promoted migration in the 1950s and 1960s. For instance, Belgium employed a labor force from Italy after the war, and France accepted migrant workers as a means of ensuring its development and improving its inadequate demographic situation due to low birth rates and loss of life during the conflict. (7) In the post-war period, Europeans did not see immigrants as a threat, because they thought they would return home in time, and because they were working in difficult areas where the Europeans did not desire to work. (8)

The emergence of international migration as a national security problem for Europe mostly coincides with the post-Cold War period. (9) In the bipolar post-Cold War world, where security was only achieved by military force and the security of the state was the main target, the phenomenon of migration was drawn into the field of the security policies that were produced in this context. European countries, which suffered great economic losses in the oil crisis in the 1970s, moved away from the policy of encouraging labor migration and started to adopt a 'zero migration policy.' This policy, established by the EU on the basis of a relationship between migration and security, has never been fully implemented due to reasons such as family reunification and the right to be a refugee. One of the last moves in attracting immigration to the field of security was the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. in 2001, which exasperated the atmosphere of confusion, uncertainty, and insecurity affecting EU immigration policy. The attacks activated preexisting dynamics in the European internal security system. With this period, the matter of migration was handled as a threat and started to be mentioned within the security discourse. (10) The terrorist attacks that took place in Madrid on March 11, 2004, and in London on July 7, 2005, had a significant impact on considering immigration in the context of security and designating it as an international crime in Europe. (11)

The concept of 'immigration regime' generally refers to the legal integrity that includes the ability of migrants and refugees to take refuge in a country, their rights, benefits, and settlement conditions. Although the EU countries have made efforts to create a common immigration regime, the sensitivity of individual nation-states to protecting their sovereignty often gets in the way of these attempts, and efforts to establish common migration policies remain incomplete.

It is possible to examine the transformation of migration into a security area in Europe on two levels. One of them is the EU process at the supranational level, and the other is the process within the nation-states themselves. Until the 1990s, migration was mostly evaluated on a national basis; after this time, supranationalization began and the problem was handled on a global basis. (12) The valuation of migration on the axis of security indicates a very sensitive point in terms of politics and has strategic importance in the context of national security, as states hesitate to lose control over their own lands. States that believe that measures taken at the EU level are more effective cooperate on the issue of migration in order to ensure their own security. Despite these differences among states, reducing illegal immigration is still a political priority, both at the national and EU level. (13)

The immigration regimes of the 1970s in Europe did not lead to a rapid rise in irregular land and sea migration. Indeed, there was no rapid increase until the 1990s. Therefore, in this period, migration was not perceived as a problem and was not handled in the context of security until the Schengen Agreement, which emerged largely for political and symbolic reasons, and gave the right to free movement among European nation-states while building walls for others. (14) The security concerns experienced by the EU have changed the image of the EU in the outside world, causing it to be perceived as a 'Fortress Europe' with internal borders removed but external walls rising. (15) In the early 1990s, with the introduction of visa requirements for North Africans, migrant boats became visible along the coasts and legal routes were replaced with irregular ones. Since this time, migration routes have diversified to include the Italian island of Lampedusa, Spain's settlements in North Africa, Ceuta and Melilla, Spain's Canary Islands, the Greece-Turkey land border, and Lampedusa...